None of them can actually relate. On either side, that's part of the problem. Our election system is currently only allows people with money enough to not work while campaigning to even have a chance. I don't know the solution, but to me, it's a problem.

I don't know the current state of it, but NJ was seriously considering a system that would cap campaign funds according to donations, possibly working in state financing relative to private donations as well, and require a bottom-up campaign strategy in which candidates would have to start at a local level and work up from there.

Or something like that. I honestly can't remember the specifics right now, and I'm too busy to look into it right now. But the idea was to open up campaigns to lower classes by evening the playing field. There was some kind of system that limited funds relative to donations or something, and required donations to be within the district.

...

I think I'm making this more confusing, and I'm ultimately going to fail at explaining it anyway, since I don't really understand how it worked in the first place. I just know that the concept was that they had to start small and there was a proposed system in place to keep the playing field sorta equal. I remember thinking it sounded a little like a tournament system (but not anywhere near as simplistic).

It's fairly disheartening to see people on either side making an issue of the comment. It shows a concern more with a thin veneer of a pleb than anything that lies underneath. It's ok for him to be a millionaire who can't relate to working class citizens, but it's not ok for him to talk about it.

It's fairly disheartening to see people on either side making an issue of the comment. It shows a concern more with a thin veneer of a pleb than anything that lies underneath. It's ok for him to be a millionaire who can't relate to working class citizens, but it's not ok for him to talk about it.

During the Virginia ratifying Convention in 1788, Edmund Randolph (one of our Secretary of States) referred the people as a "herd." Patrick Henry, a leading anti-federalist due to their elitism, called him on it.

Alexander Hamilton denied allegations that the Federalist Party were attempting to create a new aristocracy by arguing that aristocracy required a belief in an independent power that elevated you above other men. Yet when addressing criticisms of a general election system as opposed to district elections, they alleged that only the greatest of men deserved a seat in government, and that district elections would only keep better men out (never mind that it would mean stripping proper representation from that district).

In 1794, the Federalist Party signed the Jay Treaty with Britain (which was WILDLY unpopular, since they were at war with revolutionary France at the time), primarily so that they could secure trade with Britain. AMAZINGLY, this trade agreement benefited the gentry, but the vast majority of Americans would have profited more from an agreement with France, who were seeking more mundane goods like wheat.

The Federalist Party passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 in an attempt to keep Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, from speaking out against the government by publishing "scandalous" or "malicious" writings. AMAZINGLY, this just happened to be an election year, and the federal gov't had just levied a much hated tax on the people to fund a naval war with France, who was seizing trade ships bound for Britain. Why? Because the Federalist US gov't had stopped repaying our war debt to them on the grounds that we owed it to the crown, not the republic. They were also, unsurprisingly, ****** that although they helped us during our war with Britain, we sided Britain during theirs. And they weren't even seeking munitions, they wanted food to combat the droughts and ice storms of that decade.

I could continue on from here, but I don't really see any reason to.

Modern politicians aren't really any different from our earliest founders. And the distinction of wealth has never been acceptable conversation except behind closed doors. It was considered such a threat to the early founders that they had to pass legislation decimating the first amendment to keep people from talking about it.

Not really. But Murdoch has picked Gingrich over Romney. Just look at their recent interviews, one guy is asked "Why are you so awesome" (and has worked for fox before) and the other guy is asked "why aren't you a real American".

It's fairly disheartening to see people on either side making an issue of the comment. It shows a concern more with a thin veneer of a pleb than anything that lies underneath. It's ok for him to be a millionaire who can't relate to working class citizens, but it's not ok for him to talk about it.

People want their politicians to lie to them all the time, and become upset when the facade breaks.

Modern politicians aren't really any different from our earliest founders.

Just so you know, but I never stated or implied this was a new occurrence.

Timelordwho wrote:

People want their politicians to lie to them all the time, and become upset when the facade breaks.

Then they rail on about 'all those lying politicians'.

I'm well aware, but it's no less saddening each time.

As a general rule, I think the conservative mantra of "personal responsibility" is a ridiculous notion, because people don't spontaneously change themselves and rise to challenges, they continue with inertia unless acted on by an outside force. However, for the political environment to improve, there has to be personal responsibility. Voters need to value inconvenient truths and devalue advantageous lies.

#35varusword75,
Posted:Dec 12 2011 at 9:00 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Boy you liberals are delusional. Obama's not running against the gop he's running against his record. His economic and foreign policies are what's going to do him in; just like it did the democrat congress. Obama's not going to be able to escape the fact that all he's done is spent US tax dollars at a record rate with nothing to show for it but bankrupted govn funded businesses like Solyndra or gm. While i'm a Cain fan I think we all know the right will support whoever becomes the nominee. Then Obama's going to be held accountable for the things he's done to damage this country.

For most Americans, $10,000 is a lot of money. Apparently. for Romney it is not. His estimated net worth is said to be at least $200 million. Thus for him, $10,000 represents 1/200 of 1% of his net worth. For the median family, whose net worth is about $100,000 (including home equity), 1/200 of 1% is $5. So for Romney, making a $10,000 bet takes about as much forethought as for the average person to make a $5 bet. Put in another light, $10,000 is 2-3 months income for the average family.

pretty much but when the majority of consumers live paycheck to paycheck and can't go around wining 10K bets off people for quotes from a book. Consumers do create jobs, but that also falls back on the more than wealthy owners and board members who limit job creation in order to have a fatter bottom line. First thing to go isn't Corporate Bonuses. Is Jack and Jills jobs.

It is really a catch 22. Can't have jobs if people don't buy ****, can't buy **** without a job. But as long as these rich types keep pocketing multi millions in bonuses (or even hundreds of thousands) It looks pretty obvious why jobs aren't being made. The select few on top are consumed by money. If every CEO took a cut to his bonus and made equal paying jobs from it, it would increase money in the market.

But we both know that will never happen, and so we must live with the government infusing money into the economy in place of the consumer (which is really the consumer spending their own money back into the economy anyway. Stimulus on its own works pretty well, the other tacked on **** you americans do to every bill doesn't).

The only way for the US to pull its consumer based economy back up on its feet is to really tell the media to shut up. The US economy has nearly rebounded to pre recession levels. It is begining to pick up steam. The only detractor is the debt, which needs to be fixed between a tax and cut approach (which will likely be resisted by both parties). The Media is probably the worst influence on the economy currently, and the biggest detractor to consumer spending and overall job creation.

The media looks at numbers like 150,000 jobs created vs 300000 jobs lost. They don't tell you that the net wealth of those 150K jobs is more than the 300K lost. In other threads here everyone seems to echo a common theme that they have better paying jobs then they did years ago.

The point is the American Economy is reverting to a healthy economy. Once the base gets set again then those 300K jobs will come back, because the 150K have more discretionary spending and can do extra **** like movies, resturants, and nights on the town.

Id wager a majority of the jobs the US has shed are service industry based, (fast food, movies etc) jobs that are volatile based on spending. As wealthy jobs increase (IT, Manufacturing etc) so to will the service jobs.

For most Americans, $10,000 is a lot of money. Apparently. for Romney it is not. His estimated net worth is said to be at least $200 million. Thus for him, $10,000 represents 1/200 of 1% of his net worth. For the median family, whose net worth is about $100,000 (including home equity), 1/200 of 1% is $5. So for Romney, making a $10,000 bet takes about as much forethought as for the average person to make a $5 bet. Put in another light, $10,000 is 2-3 months income for the average family.

I know that this is the talking point of the day, but what does this have to do with anything? Romney presumably picked that dollar amount *because* it is considered a lot of money and not an amount you'd just sling around casually. It was a poor response to Perry, but not because it shows him to be "out of touch" with the average person. I do find it fascinating that this is the angle that most of the media is focusing on though.

The most basic level of car insurance only covers liability. So if you were at fault, your insurance would cover any costs the other person has as far as car repairs and medical bills. To be able to cover repairs to your own vehicle (or replacing the vehicle if you total it), you have to have comprehensive insurance, and even then you still have to pay a deductible.

The most basic level of car insurance only covers liability. So if you were at fault, your insurance would cover any costs the other person has as far as car repairs and medical bills. To be able to cover repairs to your own vehicle (or replacing the vehicle if you total it), you have to have comprehensivecollision insurance, and even then you still have to pay a deductible.

____________________________

People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

I was thinking more along the lines of "replacing a car" than I was health insurance.

Oh I assumed Health related because of the 10K number, Considering most cars can be purchased with 0 down and/or a bank loan. (or barring the expensive route a few hundred to a few thousand depending on how used you want to go.)

I know that this is the talking point of the day, but what does this have to do with anything? Romney presumably picked that dollar amount *because* it is considered a lot of money and not an amount you'd just sling around casually.

Why should anyone presume it? I mean, I know you do because Romney is your man and so your little spin machine starts the moment he's threatened but no one else saw it that way and there's no real reason to assume that they rightfully should have. Why not then ten million dollars? A bajillion dollars?

The funniest part is how Gingrich is a convicted adulterer and is both still in and doing relatively well, but Cain was only accused of it and he gave up and ran scared.

Ehhhh, there's a difference between infidelity and sexual harassment. Cain was accused of both. Gingrich is a known serial philanderer while married (which makes his recent "pledge of personal fidelity" to the evangelicals ever so much more gratifying); but I don't recall anyone accusing him of harassment.

Yet, anyway. The week is young.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.